Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Altarf

Again you seemed to have missed the point.

Which is worse, some motorists who are out to get cyclists, or the 99% of motorists who do not think about cyclists?

In your example with the bus driver aiming at the cyclist, the cyclist lived.

In this example where the bus driver wasn't aiming at the cyclist, but just wasn't thinking, the cyclist died - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25816281

custardy wrote: »

Sadly your view seems shared by the judicial system given by the lenient sentences and warped views displayed in many cases.

So if society isn't going to do anything to change things, then the only person that can protect you, is you.

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Well, wasn't that his view on another thread, about cycle paths? Use them or face the consequences?

Yes.

You need to weigh up the risks caused by your choices. If the road is more dangerous than the cycle path, then the consequence of that choice will inevitably follow.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Again you seemed to have missed the point.

Which is worse, some motorists who are out to get cyclists, or the 99% of motorists who do not think about cyclists?

In your example with the bus driver aiming at the cyclist, the cyclist lived.

In this example where the bus driver wasn't aiming at the cyclist, but just wasn't thinking, the cyclist died - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25816281



So if society isn't going to do anything to change things, then the only person that can protect you, is you.



Yes.

You need to weigh up the risks of your choices, and if the road is more dangerous than the cycle path, then the consequence of that choice will inevitably follow.

Stupid me.

That would imply that some motorists are deliberately out to kill and injure cyclists.

I didnt realise being hit by a bus didnt count as being injured.
As I said. Shouldnt be on the roads.....

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

Stupid me.

You said it.

custardy wrote: »

Shouldnt be on the roads.....

If that is your choice.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

You said it.



If that is your choice.

That all you got?
Would you be a little more forward inside a metal box?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

That all you got?
Would you be a little more forward inside a metal box?

Could you translate that for me.

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

You need to weigh up the risks caused by your choices. If the road is more dangerous than the cycle path, then the consequence of that choice will inevitably follow.

And as already argued, a high proportion of cycle paths/cycle ways/shared paths are not fit for purpose. (not counting the one you know of where you can safely do 50mph)

silverwhistle

Altarf wrote: »

Which is worse, some motorists who are out to get cyclists, or the 99% of motorists who do not think about cyclists?

<SNIP>

So if society isn't going to do anything to change things, then the only person that can protect you, is you.

You need to weigh up the risks caused by your choices

I really find your arguments most unpleasant and although I don't want to tar you with the same adjective, your persistance has me on the verge of doing so.

I don't define myself as a cyclist anymore than I do as a motorist, skier, horse-rider or helmsman, but I can still recognise somebody who is blaming the victim.

Now, I'm a big lass and strong: can winch a mainsail and play a contact sport, and I've never suffered the harassment which Lord Rennard is currently accused of. Funny that.. But that's not to say I don't recognise such bullying when I see it. What you're saying - "99% of motorists" etc. - is that such bullying is quite acceptable to you, nothing to do with me guv', as a victim you should do something about it, and so forth.

Quite horrible, really, the what-aboutery you get on these threads, all the while ignoring the casualties.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

If you think that you can change *every single* motorist's attitude (99% isn't good enough, it only takes one to kill you) then good luck deluding yourself.

In the interim until you reach that state of impossibility, who do you think needs to make more care -

The car driver who has the result of hundreds of millions of pounds of road safety research encasing them in a safe cocoon of steel and airbags.

Or the cyclist with a polystyrene helmet.

If you are addressing me personally, for me not to be killed by a motorist, the answer to your question is the motorist must take more care. The motorist must understand the demands I place on him for my safety, the motorist must understand that to drive too close behind me, to overtake too close to me, to fail to see me when I'm perfectly visible on the road is adding danger to my cycling that I can do little or nothing about.

For my part, I wear colourful clothing/reflectives, top quality headgear, 150/900 lumen front lights always on, 70 lumen blinder rear light always on. I take extra care around junctions and other hazards, I position myself appropriately depending on circumstance. I control traffic behind, and I thank motorists for their courtesy when their driving deserves it. I have numerous additional driving qualifications that I like to think benefit me as a cyclist. And I have seen the consequences when it all goes horribly wrong.

The problem with your arguments, which is evident all the way through what you write, is that you tar all cyclists with the same brush of incompetence.
There are many cyclists who can improve their safety. There are many motorists who could mitigate the danger they pose to cyclists.

But for me to be safer on the road depends on those less considerate motorists taking the care that the good motorists take when driving near me.

Either that, or cycle a bit less.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

If you are addressing me personally, for me not to be killed by a motorist, the answer to your question is the motorist must take more care. The motorist must understand the demands I place on him for my safety, the motorist must understand that to drive too close behind me, to overtake too close to me, to fail to see me when I'm perfectly visible on the road is adding danger to my cycling that I can do little or nothing about.

For my part, I wear colourful clothing/reflectives, top quality headgear, 150/900 lumen front lights always on, 70 lumen blinder rear light always on. I take extra care around junctions and other hazards, I position myself appropriately depending on circumstance. I control traffic behind, and I thank motorists for their courtesy when their driving deserves it. I have numerous additional driving qualifications that I like to think benefit me as a cyclist. And I have seen the consequences when it all goes horribly wrong.

The problem with your arguments, which is evident all the way through what you write, is that you tar all cyclists with the same brush of incompetence.
There are many cyclists who can improve their safety. There are many motorists who could mitigate the danger they pose to cyclists.

But for me to be safer on the road depends on those less considerate motorists taking the care that the good motorists take when driving near me.

Either that, or cycle a bit less.

You sir, are a credit to cyclists and it's just a pity that ALL cyclists do not follow your example.

For example the woman who was escorting her (I assume) young son this very foggy morning (both riding bikes) the wrong way along a narrow one-way street without any lights on or bright clothing. As you will no doubt know, dipped headlights (which should be used in fog) aren't much good in illuminating unlit obstructions until you get near them in fog. Well you can imagine what it's like coming face to face with said cyclist who appeared out of the fog with only about 25 yards to spare on a one way street.

Fortunately for her (and her son), she came across me... an accomplished and experienced motorist who was driving to the conditions and thus able to mitigate the danger to both mother and child cyclists which the mother herself had put them both in.

God forbid the outcome if they had come across one of the less competent motorists instead.

The annoying thing is though, what a way to teach the next generation how to cycle correctly! :mad:

Point being that in this case, the mother was the biggest threat to both herself and her son.

armyknife

A fair bit of pointless chain-yanking going on in this thread; best to let the sound of derailleurs do the 'talking'.